I understand if a person can't afford or doesn't want to go take the time and pay the money for good training. But if that's the case, they should call it what it is and not pretend that they're somehow going to magically rise to the occasion as well as someone who has trained for the occasion.
This thread started out on the five rules, it appears that the most confrontational issue is over multiple firearms and the amount of training required to do so. Some argue that only one firearm is the gold standard, others argue toward tailoring the firearm to the occasion, others feel competent with several different firearms. Obviously, it is easier to focus on one firearm's characteristics and learn to operate it competently as a general rule. Those whose livelihoods and lives depended on instant unconscious mastery of that firearm like moderator Jeff White have a useful perspective especially as law enforcement is required to close and deal with society's trouble makers. Often these officers are mandated to use a particular firearm so it makes sense for them to concentrate on mastery of it.
For the armed citizen, it is not as clear. Few if any receive any pay for attending training and instead shell out their hard earned wages to do so. The instruction is usually locally based and may or may not be competent. Instructing others is an art itself apart from firearms knowledge. Second, the risks for an armed civilian may be exposure of the firearm, etc., LEOs, including former ones under LEOSA, have less fear of this. An armed civilian may value concealment over all other factors thus avoiding easier to draw holsters (but less concealable), etc. that do not meet a highly concealed standard due to their employment, social group, uncertainty of firearms laws, etc.
The armed civilian often feels little if no inclination to perform citizens' arrest or involvement in the disputes of others. Thus, a five round snubbie with perhaps a reload strip or so may fulfill their perceived need to have a gun to use in the gravest extreme. Some may carry mouse guns in calibers such as .22 LR, .32 ACP, etc. and probably few people actually carry a spare mag with ammo. None of these are considered optimal rounds and some of the mouse guns are poorly constructed such as Jimenez, Lorcin, etc.
Bearcreek is correct that relatively few of these individuals have thought, trained, or tried to gain further experience about self defense other than to acquire a firearm, maybe several. Most probably would have trouble drawing a weapon from concealment or fixing a weapons malfunction. Their state might or might not mandate training to obtain a permit which is usually in a cursory, mass classroom type, with minimal range qualifications with no sort of training that I presume bearcreek and others do regarding actual use of a firearm in self defense. Mandated training for permits is often mediocre and shallow due to the time and expense. If an actual gunfight occurs, many of these individuals will have a delayed and less than optimal response. But not all and that is where much of the dispute in this thread above occurs.
To circle back to the original point of dispute, it is wise for one to be well acquainted with a firearm that you intend to use in self defense. It should be reliable, use proper ammunition for self defense and that ammunition should be tested for reliability/accuracy in that firearm. It should have at least combat accuracy for the person firing it and be recognized as a reliable firearm through general knowledge before purchase. One should also ensure that it works in a reliable fashion by firing it enough at a range that it is "broke in" and demonstrates continuous reliability. One should know the basic manual of arms of a particular firearm such as reloading, cleaning and servicing, and operation of decockers, safeties, slide release, and resolving common malfunctions. Good holsters, proper clothing, proper concealment, and proper drawing techniques from a concealed position in a safe and effective fashion should be employed.
To do so takes time, some techniques are broadly applicable such as the draw itself from a consistent position, similarities between full-size, compact, and sub-compact families of firearms (Glock, S&W. Sigs, etc.) in their operation and location of controls, malfunction drills among semi autos and revolvers, etc. Some will be able to do so through self training and use, some will require quite a bit of training to achieve mediocre results, others will definitely benefit from training and obtain quicker and better results than by self training. All will increase their likelihood if they have to deploy their firearm, that they will survive the encounter. Some may fail regardless of their extensive training, etc. while other unschooled individuals might well do better. Richard Davis, developer of Last Chance body armor, faced three attackers with a cheap .22 LR revolver, he shot three of them with no training and survived his gunshot wounds from one of the attackers.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/13/massad-ayoob-capacity-just-how-much-do-you-need-to-carry/
A strong will and motive to survive and use whatever tools to ensure that is the ultimate personal quality that is hard to instill and hard to predict but a wise person would try to "cheat" by maximizing the odds in one's favor. First by broadening the idea of training, second by realistically assessing strong and weak points of one's abilities. If one has trouble in doing so, then a trainer is invaluable for the areas of their expertise. Actually grapple with the tradeoffs and your assumptions about your particular security situation. What are your likely encounters, how would you avoid certain confrontation, what kind of situational awareness should you have and where.
After developing your security plan to maximize success, then determine what tools are needed in your toolbox, determine whether you have the necessary tools and competence in using them, and consult authorities, such as some on this board, noted broad based trainers either personally or through their books and videos, and research into particular situations that others have faced through reading after action reports from folks like Chris Bird, Massad Ayoob, Claude Werner, etc. Do what is necessary to get competence. Hope you never have to use any of it aside from assisting others on things like message boards or critiquing movies/tv series/documentaries on their inappropriate demonstrations of firearms use.
NOW, FOR ALL OF THOSE WHO HATE LONG WINDED POSTS-STOP HERE. The rest of this post deals with training for self defense in general, the nature of the problem, and some opinions on what problems exist in the mismatch between most self defense training and the nature of the problem. Please ignore or disagree if you like as it is merely my opinion based on some facts gleaned through experience, knowledge from others, and training.
Ahem,
Assuming that what is true generally is true for an individual occurrence is an ecological fallacy. While something may be statistically demonstrated, it does not follow that individual confrontations that the general rule holds true. Some rise to the occasion and some will not despite training or lack thereof and like the paradox of who shaves the Spanish Barber, only after the fact can you tell.
I generally dislike addressing specific individuals as such but consider the proposition that the training that is commonly offered may be necessarily incomplete and should be modest in its claims for advantages for students undertaking it.
A holistic training regimen requires conflict avoidance and settlement skills, marksmanship, situational awareness, perhaps driving skills, adequate security planning for the home and automobile, low light techniques, uses of lighting and lasers in target acquisition, use of different types of firearm sights, assessment of work place, assessment of backstops, clearing a structure in close quarters, knowledge and experience handling of handgun, shotguns, and rifles, best ready access and storage for firearms, a knowledge of self defense martial arts techniques, knowledge of mental illness, experience in bullet types and ammunition, use of Less Than Lethal weapons, knowledge of animal attacks, if using long arms, knowledge and ability to use the stock as a weapon via butt strokes for retention and self defense etc., substantial instruction not only of the black letter of the law but also where the state and locality have actually interpreted the law through cases, being able to read and perceive body language,medical knowledge, perhaps some foreign language skills, having adequate financial and psychological reserves for a trial, etc. I am sure that I have left out some other relevant variables which others can point out. I suspect very few individuals outside of the security contracting or point of spear alphabet agencies/spec ops types have all of these skills. I certainly don't and recognize that fact.
In a crisis occurrence, some of the above variables will be relevant--but predicting which ones are relevant, particularly in chance encounters, to win (e.g. survive) is probabilistic by nature. For example, if you work for a pizza delivery service, you may expect certain type of encounters with unpleasant individuals. Training for that greater potential likelihood might well improve your odds in perceived likely confrontations. That might or might not prepare you for the less likely mass shooting at a public mall but it might. Similarly, knowledge of a potentially violent conflicts within families or grudges among neighbors/co-workers/etc. might lead someone to seek the tools necessary to deal with expected conflicts but someone may be at sea when dealing with anonymous thugs at a late night gas stop. The key is admitting that training can be very relevant as the discipline and experience from adequate training can be useful across contexts indirectly (confidence, problem solving attitude, etc.). But, also that training for all occurrences can be difficult, time consuming, and expensive to master of most possible self-defense scenarios, let alone the situation of the defense of others.
For most of us, the best that we can do is assess our particular likelihoods of conflict, and seek to gain understanding of the problem and competence in the particular tools necessary. Training is a continuum--not binary. Thus, for some people and their problem, merely reading about the idea and a thought exercise might be enough while others with constant training repetitions through in-person training may flub it. Individual strengths and weaknesses may well override predictable statistical likelihoods in a particular confrontation.
If we accept that we live in a probabilistic world, where we try to maximize the odds in our favor in this thing called life, a wise person recognizes that tradeoffs exist as Bearcreek did above. One should also recognize a degree of randomness and that all people are created equal applies in political contexts but not in ability, training, and skill. People ain't potatoes.
For all that I know, Bearcreek may possess the skills that I mention above and other skills necessary and be a former professional specialist in such things. Nevertheless, almost all individuals, including most law enforcement , ex military trainers, etc. would be regarded as deficient in training by an all-inclusive standard. Furthermore, trainer experiences may or not be transferrable to other situations.
In a particular training courses, I doubt that even if someone could teach all of these things mentioned in greater than cursory fashion, people would be able to spend the time and money necessary to achieve proficiency in these things. Furthermore, a lot of the training necessary to maintain competence is not something that most people would be able to afford nor would have interest in unless it is their job. There is a reason that former Spec Ops and security personnel get paid so much on the open market--the job qualifications of skill and very expensive extensive training have already been established.
I thought one thing was telling in Bearcreek's response above--e.g. success in a gun fight was mentioned as a metric of success. What I would argue, at that point, one has already failed in the avoidance of conflict which is something that can be taught. From what I have observed from studying self defense over the years, the 80-20 (one can quibble about the percentages but there are a vast number of DGU's compared with relatively fewer actual completions of armed self defense actually firing it during a gunfight) rule for an armed civilian probably applies--first, avoiding injury/death is a win--thus de-escalate escape if you can rather than duking it out--robbery, throw down your wallet or phone--etc. Compliance might work quite better than a draw of a weapon with ensuing distraction and subsequent fleeing if possible, etc.
The 20 percent or so escalated confrontations might then actually require drawing and a subsequent gunfight where the optimum outcome is escape without injury and hopefully without actually killing anyone else. And I am not saying that one should try to shoot an arm or a leg, or fire warning shots or some other tactical or legally problematic action. But, the paramount goal should be "winning (strategy)" the survival and avoidance of injury game rather than "winning the gunfight (tactic)." If equal vigor and time in training was spent recognizing potential confrontations, security and awareness training, and so forth, compared with marksmanship and drawing, I suspect that a lot of confrontations could be avoided.
I was always struck by the idiocy of the young Greek man in Guns of Navarone movie where he was determined to shoot down the Nazi soldier so much so that he gets gunned down himself doing so. To the best of my knowledge, relatively few trainers focus on retreating and fleeing safely--partly because of range limitations and dangerous liability on movement with firearms, and second because the idea of flight to the military and police (and many civilians) may be distasteful. Nevertheless, if at all possible, after studying cases, jury verdicts, etc., flight and dis engagement is a superior strategy for an armed civilian if it can be pulled off rather than mutual combat.
One example, moving extensively while shooting accurately is a difficult skill that requires substantial training and to some extent relies on the military concept of covering fire. The military concept though ignores potential legal consequences. For us civilians, it is difficult enough to assess a backdrop's reliability in a relatively static situation such as a Wal Mart parking lot. Firing and moving in that location with a mix of bad guys and innocent bystanders is not optimal from a moral or legal standard. It would be best to concentrate on dis engagement and evasion. In a true 360 situation such as the above scenario, the chaotic situation is not really one to train for and even less for an armed civilian to engage willfully in a firefight. Outside of military training using crisis actors and mockup villages, very few places would be available for such training and even fewer could afford it.
So if 80% of confrontations could be avoided via skills in situational assessment, escape and evasion, and conflict avoidance/de escalating skills, and 20% via actual gunfighting (lets just say for arguments sake broken down by 5% marksmanship, 5% movement, 5% drawing, 5% other--martial arts strikes, malfunction clearance skills, weapon retention skills, driving skills, etc. ) --which does it make sense to concentrate training time upon. Much of that training and skill in situational awareness, escape and evasion, and conflict avoidance/de escalation may also be acquired outside of the official training regime through books, videos, etc. Some people are conflict averse by nature as well.
I think that Jeff White and other moderators on this particular sub board do an excellent job of emphasizing conflict avoidance over firearms use. Those posters with ninja postings and unrelated careless and dangerous attitudes are promptly corrected. It is my hope that the firearm community, especially the rank and file firearms trainers, start to focus as much on conflict avoidance, situational awareness, and legal factors constraining firearms use, as much as they do malfunction avoidance drills, tactical reloading, and The Bill Drill.
RANT/DISCOURSE OVER.
